À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC v. Chukwuka Obeleagu, Fudmart Tech Resources

Case No. D2019-1734

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Banana Republic (Apparel), LLC, United States of America (the “United States”), represented by The Gigalaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Chukwuka Obeleagu, Fudmart Tech Resources, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bananarepublic.website> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2019. On July 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 14, 2019. On July 25, 2019 the Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent. The Center notified the Parties the Commencement of the Panel Appointment Process on August 22, 2019.

The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on August 27, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a global apparel and accessories brand founded in 1978 in San Francisco, California (United States), and located in about 700 company-operated and franchise retail locations worldwide. The Complainant has been consistently ranked on multiple lists of the world’s top brands, including “Best Retail Brands” by Interbrand.

The Complainant directly and indirectly owns at least 1,195 trademark registrations or applications in at least 169 countries or jurisdictions worldwide (including 10 in Nigeria) for marks that consist of or contain BANANA REPUBLIC including Registration No. 1,347,849 (first used November, 1978; registered July 9, 1985) in the United States.

The Complainant via its parent company Gap Inc. is the registrant of and uses the domain name <bananarepublic.com> (created December 29, 1995).

The disputed domain name was registered on February 20, 2019 and on the date of the Complaint resolved to a website that includes a photo of a man and woman who appear to be a romantic couple, and also includes text and a link that says, “Want to make N200/day, Click HERE to join Telegram group to learn more.” Currently the website also suggests dating services.

The Complainant addressed the Respondent with cease and desist letters, which were never answered.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant (or its predecessor or related companies) has rights in and to the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark. The disputed domain name contains the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark (and only the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark) in its entirety. The Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.website” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark in any manner. The Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and, therefore, cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. By using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that includes a prominent photo of a man and woman who appear to be a romantic couple, wearing clothing similar to that offered by the Complainant and/or other Gap Inc. brands, the Respondent’s actions are not bona fide. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, and, therefore, cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. By using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that includes a prominent photo of a man and woman who appear to be a romantic couple, wearing clothing similar to that offered by the Complainant and/or other Gap Inc. brands and similar to the Complainant’s own advertisements, the Respondent’s actions are clearly misleading and not fair.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Registration of the disputed domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the famous or widely-known Complainant’s trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name given the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. The oldest existing registration for the BANANA REPUBLIC trademark was first used 41 years and registered 34 years before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Because the disputed domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant, the Respondent’s actions suggest opportunistic bad faith. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that includes a prominent photo of a man and woman who appear to be a romantic couple, wearing clothing similar to that offered by the Complainant and/or other Gap Inc. brands, similar to some of the Complainant’s advertisements, which indicates that the Respondent acted in bad faith. This is true even if the Respondent’s website is not primarily an ecommerce website offering products or services for sale. The Complainant sent at least three emails to the Respondent, however no reply followed, which is bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In its email communication of July 25, 2019, the Respondent stated: “I purchased this domain name legally through Bluehost. If the complainant wishes to purchase the domain name from me. They will have to purchase it for a Sum of $1000 paid via Bitcoin. Am open to negotiate with them, if they wish to. Regards”.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in its registered trademarks.

According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), the applicable TLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards the TLD “.website” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test.

According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.

Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademarks by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPOCase No. D2014-1875).

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its right or legitimate interest (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642).

Considering the above and based on the available record, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark, both in the United States and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name identical to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith.

Given the circumstances of the case the Panel finds that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew, or at least should have known about the existence of the Complainant’s earlier registered and known trademark, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is clearly misleading and not fair.

The Respondent ignored its possibility to comment on the contrary and provide any good explanations to prove its good faith while registering and using the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters, and did not provide any good reason to justify this, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin v. Vaclav Novotny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1022). In its email communication of July 25, 2019, the Respondent did not provide a credible explanation to justify its registration of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, in its message the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for “$1000”.

Without a credible explanation from the Respondent, the Panel infers that the Respondent somehow unfairly benefits from the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.

Considering the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <bananarepublic.website> be transferred to the Complainant.

Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/